No. We don't "fundamentally disagree". We're looking at proposed "solutions" and immediately see the vast disconnect between what they claim to do/solve/improve and what they actually do/solve/improve.
Any questions and criticism of these claims and solutions is immediately dismissed because these are unquestionable magical solutions beyond any reproach.
And proponents of these things can't even show how and why they are better beyond "because crypto", "because decentralised", "because blockchain", as if this explains things and makes thing automatically better. No, they don't.
Do you have an example of this happening in this thread? Because I don't think this is the case on HN generally.
> And proponents of these things can't even show how and why they are better beyond [...] "because decentralised" [...] as if this explains things and makes thing automatically better. No, they don't.
You seem to be agreeing with my point about how the value of a decentralized solution is a fundamental disagreement.
This thread doesn't say this outright, but these basically says the same thing:
- "We had fax machines before we had email. You could have said..."
- "I don't think knee jerk dismissal is the right stance to take."
> You seem to be agreeing with my point about how the value of a decentralized solution is a fundamental disagreement.
No, I don't agree. Your original quote is:
"But this is why critics will never see any use cases as valid, because they fundamentally disagree that the thing blockchains do (decentralized coordination) is valuable."
Critics do not disagree that decentralized coordination is valuable. Decentralized coordination is an interesting and complex topic.
We will never see any use cases as valid because none of the provided use cases are valid because of either or both of these:
- a staggering amount of issues introduced by using blockchains. Because the people proposing blockchains have little to no understanding of what the real world needs
- solutions already exist that provide the same thing faster, better, and with significantly more guarantees than any blockchain solution. First and foremost because none of the moving parts in the solution actually have a need for a blockchain
All this has nothing to do with the "value of distributed coordination". Blockchain is a distributed append-only ledger. Give me a use-case for that, and I, as a critic, will say: yup, a valid use case. If you're saying "yes, litigation funding needs blockchain because crypto and decentralized", I will come at you with criticism, and will ask you to prove that bringing blockchain into the equation actually improves things or solves any significant number of issues.
If we go down this line of arguing we will end up with one or more of
- It's actually a good thing for a central bank to control the money supply
- We should be able to censor/reverse certain transactions
- Ordinary people don't actually care about those things
proving my point that if you don't value decentralization then you will think that existing solutions that don't have it are better.
This is a solution in search of a problem.
> If we go down this line of arguing we will end up with one or more of
Yes. Yes we do. And for a good reason. And no, not just those, though I see why you would only chose those.
And yes, "ordinary people" do care about these things when it comes to reverting transactions, enforcing contracts, guaranteeing safety of funds etc. etc.
> proving my point that if you don't value decentralization
When you select your own questions that you assign to your opponent, it's so easy to win an argument, doesn't it?
For example, you and sanderjd completely skipped the three bullet points I provided as criticism. And it's no wonder you did. Because all you, and other crypto-peddlers, can talk about is "BIG BAD GOVERNMENT CONTROLS AND CENSORS THE MONEY", and have literally nothing to offer in terms of actual concrete arguments for the "solutions" you peddle.
Blockchains in their current form are 13 years this year. And these are still the only talking points you have.
I will not engage in this thread anymore, so don't bother to reply.
Dude, I'm not even trying to argue in favor of crypto in this thread. My point was critics will never be satisfied by proponents' arguments because they don't value the one thing blockchains do, which is arrest control from central parties. And here you are, saying it's a solution in search of a problem (i.e. it adds no value) and making arguments like
> reverting transactions, enforcing contracts, guaranteeing safety of funds etc. etc.
which is exactly what I said you would come back with. Because when you don't value decentralization, the lack of centralized control looks like nothing but downsides. Thank you for proving my point.
> don't bother to reply.
It's no bother :^)
Do they?
Let's see how you and @jallen_dot_dev engaged with the criticisms I had in the form of a short list:
- "knee-jerk reaction"
- "it's like email vs. fax"
- "you disagree that distributed coordination is valuable"
Nope, my proportions are definitely not off. Even in the context of "litigation funding" any criticism is dismissed because blockchain. Even though it's on crypto-peddlers to prove that their "solutions" improve anything, not on the rest of the world to point out obvious flaws and problems.
But, no. If it's blockchain, it's immediately good, and perfect, and improves things. If you do't agree, it's a knee-jerk reaction of a person embracing fax against the glorious new email. Because anything blockchain is always revolutionary in all "it's just a metaphors".
I will not engage in this thread further.
Whatever else is true about cryptocurrencies / blockchains, "beyond reproach" is not one of those things; I can't think of much in technology that I've seen come in for so much reproach. Which is fine, I agree with you that nothing should be beyond reproach, but it just isn't true that there is no healthy full throated pushback on these technologies.